1
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,560
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,640 --> 00:00:10,440
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,440
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:13,480 --> 00:00:18,040
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

5
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:22,400
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com Slash podcasts. The Washington Post

6
00:00:22,440 --> 00:00:25,000
Speaker 1: and New York Times have reported that President Trump wanted

7
00:00:25,000 --> 00:00:29,360
Speaker 1: to fire Robert Muller in June, something that Democratic Senator

8
00:00:29,480 --> 00:00:33,600
Speaker 1: Richard Bloomhal called stunning. This report shows there's now a

9
00:00:33,720 --> 00:00:37,280
Speaker 1: credible case of stution of justice. But even if Mueller

10
00:00:37,400 --> 00:00:40,640
Speaker 1: has an obstruction case, Bloomberg News is now reporting that

11
00:00:40,760 --> 00:00:44,000
Speaker 1: he may put any charges on hold as he finishes

12
00:00:44,080 --> 00:00:47,320
Speaker 1: other key parts of his probe indo Russian election meddling.

13
00:00:47,680 --> 00:00:50,519
Speaker 1: Kevin White Law, Bloomberg News Deputy Managing editor, stops in

14
00:00:51,120 --> 00:00:54,080
Speaker 1: for more on this story in our Bloomberg studios in

15
00:00:54,200 --> 00:00:57,240
Speaker 1: Washington and Kevin, this was a nice scoop by our team.

16
00:00:57,280 --> 00:01:00,240
Speaker 1: What does it say, Well, that's exactly right. We do

17
00:01:00,320 --> 00:01:02,840
Speaker 1: know that. Um, you know, we're Muller's in the final

18
00:01:02,880 --> 00:01:05,200
Speaker 1: stages of the obstruction part of his probe. He's got

19
00:01:05,200 --> 00:01:08,319
Speaker 1: a couple of key outstanding interviews um that he's uh,

20
00:01:08,480 --> 00:01:11,160
Speaker 1: that that he might want to pursue. We understand his

21
00:01:11,280 --> 00:01:15,360
Speaker 1: negotiations with President Trump's lawyers, but interview with the president. Um,

22
00:01:15,720 --> 00:01:18,840
Speaker 1: there's another witness to a number of key events that

23
00:01:18,920 --> 00:01:21,840
Speaker 1: Mueller's studying who has yet to be interviewed as far

24
00:01:21,840 --> 00:01:24,360
Speaker 1: as we know, and that's Donald Trump Jr. Uh. Those

25
00:01:24,400 --> 00:01:26,960
Speaker 1: are two high profile interviews. But sort of the sequencing

26
00:01:27,000 --> 00:01:29,160
Speaker 1: of how you sort of hold those interviews and close

27
00:01:29,240 --> 00:01:32,240
Speaker 1: out a portion of this probe um is very is

28
00:01:32,280 --> 00:01:34,839
Speaker 1: a very complicated decision for him, given that there's other

29
00:01:34,880 --> 00:01:37,199
Speaker 1: aspects of the probe that are going to take weeks

30
00:01:37,240 --> 00:01:40,160
Speaker 1: or months to to complete. And so there's a growing

31
00:01:40,200 --> 00:01:42,960
Speaker 1: sense and growing belief that there's a chance Muller could

32
00:01:43,040 --> 00:01:45,680
Speaker 1: even if he decides to essentially conduct the interviews and

33
00:01:45,760 --> 00:01:48,160
Speaker 1: effectively wrap up the probe, he may essentially keep his

34
00:01:48,240 --> 00:01:51,200
Speaker 1: findings withhold his findings for a while while he then

35
00:01:51,320 --> 00:01:53,880
Speaker 1: turns its attention to other elements of the probe, and

36
00:01:53,880 --> 00:01:57,120
Speaker 1: and and and and goes from there. Bloomberg News is

37
00:01:57,280 --> 00:02:01,880
Speaker 1: reporting that also during into this is that witnesses may

38
00:02:01,920 --> 00:02:04,880
Speaker 1: become less cooperative in other parts of the probe, and

39
00:02:05,320 --> 00:02:08,400
Speaker 1: the president might make a move if he if if

40
00:02:08,440 --> 00:02:12,560
Speaker 1: that comes out about about obstruction to shut it down,

41
00:02:13,120 --> 00:02:15,440
Speaker 1: well that's right. You have the problem where you um,

42
00:02:15,680 --> 00:02:19,160
Speaker 1: if to the degree that Mueller makes charges, then that

43
00:02:19,880 --> 00:02:24,120
Speaker 1: potentially provokes one set of conflicts. If he effectively clears

44
00:02:24,400 --> 00:02:26,560
Speaker 1: um anybody on this side of it, then that's suddenly

45
00:02:26,520 --> 00:02:28,520
Speaker 1: they canna say, hey, it's time to wrap up, let's go.

46
00:02:28,720 --> 00:02:31,560
Speaker 1: And and we know, we know for various reasons, he's

47
00:02:31,600 --> 00:02:34,000
Speaker 1: got weeks and months of work on a number of

48
00:02:34,040 --> 00:02:38,160
Speaker 1: different areas in the probe, so um he's got all

49
00:02:38,200 --> 00:02:40,600
Speaker 1: of that hanging over his head, along with obviously the

50
00:02:41,120 --> 00:02:44,000
Speaker 1: sort of more existential threat of the President deciding to

51
00:02:44,040 --> 00:02:46,240
Speaker 1: try to find a way to to simply fire him

52
00:02:46,240 --> 00:02:48,560
Speaker 1: if he gets too close. So there are a number

53
00:02:48,560 --> 00:02:51,880
Speaker 1: of of those calculations that facts or in. We do know.

54
00:02:51,960 --> 00:02:54,840
Speaker 1: There are several key episodes that that Muller and his

55
00:02:54,880 --> 00:02:57,240
Speaker 1: team are focusing on for just sort of trying to

56
00:02:57,240 --> 00:03:00,600
Speaker 1: figure out whether there was indeed any effort to obst justice,

57
00:03:00,880 --> 00:03:03,680
Speaker 1: and those include a couple of key meetings. One was

58
00:03:04,680 --> 00:03:08,960
Speaker 1: discussed the decision to fire uh FBI director James call

59
00:03:09,040 --> 00:03:12,239
Speaker 1: me uh The other was a discussion aboard Air Force

60
00:03:12,320 --> 00:03:16,960
Speaker 1: one over the UH response to reports about a meeting

61
00:03:17,080 --> 00:03:21,400
Speaker 1: organized at Trump Tower that included Trump Junior and Jared Kushner,

62
00:03:21,480 --> 00:03:24,160
Speaker 1: the president's son in law. So walk us through the

63
00:03:24,200 --> 00:03:27,880
Speaker 1: timing on all of this, UH, keeping in mind that

64
00:03:27,919 --> 00:03:32,680
Speaker 1: there's something happening, UH this November. What is it? Yeah,

65
00:03:33,200 --> 00:03:36,320
Speaker 1: some kind of election. Yeah, I mean, we don't really

66
00:03:36,360 --> 00:03:39,640
Speaker 1: have a lot of of information on the timing. UM.

67
00:03:39,920 --> 00:03:42,480
Speaker 1: Mueller doesn't have a deadline per se, other than maybe

68
00:03:42,480 --> 00:03:45,840
Speaker 1: a political one. So he's made it clear through his

69
00:03:46,040 --> 00:03:48,560
Speaker 1: methodical approach so far that he's going to take the

70
00:03:48,600 --> 00:03:52,240
Speaker 1: investigation wherever he thinks it needs to go. But at

71
00:03:52,240 --> 00:03:54,280
Speaker 1: the same time, I don't think he's looking for ways

72
00:03:54,360 --> 00:03:57,360
Speaker 1: to to stretch it out. So UM, he's clearly feeling

73
00:03:57,360 --> 00:04:00,800
Speaker 1: pressure to keep moving. We've seen a succession of indictments

74
00:04:00,800 --> 00:04:04,160
Speaker 1: and plea deals, including an indictment of thirteen Russians for

75
00:04:04,320 --> 00:04:07,400
Speaker 1: social media activity during the election. We are expecting at

76
00:04:07,480 --> 00:04:09,560
Speaker 1: some point there to be another set of indictments of

77
00:04:09,600 --> 00:04:12,720
Speaker 1: another indictment of a set of Russians for hacking. We

78
00:04:13,000 --> 00:04:15,360
Speaker 1: haven't seen that yet, We're we have reason to believe

79
00:04:15,360 --> 00:04:17,920
Speaker 1: that that's in the works. UM. And so that's one

80
00:04:17,960 --> 00:04:20,799
Speaker 1: of the next things we're looking for that could effectively

81
00:04:20,839 --> 00:04:23,560
Speaker 1: come at any time. And there's still other aspects of

82
00:04:23,560 --> 00:04:26,119
Speaker 1: the probe that we've had a lot less visibility into,

83
00:04:26,200 --> 00:04:29,279
Speaker 1: including questions of how deep, if at all, uh MALLA

84
00:04:29,400 --> 00:04:32,600
Speaker 1: really is going into the finances of either the President

85
00:04:32,839 --> 00:04:36,560
Speaker 1: Trump Org or Jared Kushner's company. So there's a lot

86
00:04:36,600 --> 00:04:39,640
Speaker 1: of questions we still don't know. Even as we we

87
00:04:39,640 --> 00:04:41,960
Speaker 1: we have some some new insight into some of the

88
00:04:42,000 --> 00:04:45,039
Speaker 1: decision making and uh processes that are that are going

89
00:04:45,080 --> 00:04:48,200
Speaker 1: on right now. So Maller has to prove corrupt intent

90
00:04:48,520 --> 00:04:51,679
Speaker 1: on Trump's part for the obstruction part of the case,

91
00:04:51,720 --> 00:04:55,240
Speaker 1: if he intends to go after him for obstruction, and

92
00:04:55,520 --> 00:04:58,239
Speaker 1: could he be putting the obstruction case on hold because

93
00:04:58,279 --> 00:05:01,800
Speaker 1: he wants to talk to Trump and history and Trump's

94
00:05:01,839 --> 00:05:05,920
Speaker 1: attorneys have been fighting that tooth and nail. Well, you know,

95
00:05:06,000 --> 00:05:09,359
Speaker 1: it's it's interesting the you know, as we understand it,

96
00:05:09,440 --> 00:05:12,640
Speaker 1: Trump's legal team has actually been in negotiations since late

97
00:05:12,720 --> 00:05:16,240
Speaker 1: last year UM negotiations that we're told have actually gone

98
00:05:16,240 --> 00:05:23,640
Speaker 1: on relatively smoothly and constructively. But what's unclear though is

99
00:05:23,800 --> 00:05:26,960
Speaker 1: where the which side the delays on UM there does

100
00:05:26,960 --> 00:05:30,400
Speaker 1: seem to have been a flurry of activity, uh with

101
00:05:30,400 --> 00:05:35,840
Speaker 1: with Mueller that uh as in otherwids, just his investigation continuing.

102
00:05:35,920 --> 00:05:38,040
Speaker 1: So you know, you saw Steve Bannon meet with Mueller

103
00:05:38,080 --> 00:05:40,320
Speaker 1: a few weeks ago. You know, the President is going

104
00:05:40,400 --> 00:05:42,720
Speaker 1: to be essentially the last or one of the last

105
00:05:42,760 --> 00:05:45,040
Speaker 1: interviews that Mueller would want to have when it comes

106
00:05:45,040 --> 00:05:47,920
Speaker 1: to an obstruction case. So he wants to interview absolutely everybody.

107
00:05:47,920 --> 00:05:51,000
Speaker 1: And it feels like there's a couple more alley ways

108
00:05:51,080 --> 00:05:53,880
Speaker 1: and side doors that that Mueller wanted to go down

109
00:05:53,920 --> 00:05:56,080
Speaker 1: before he gets that interview. There is a very good

110
00:05:56,160 --> 00:05:58,200
Speaker 1: question though as to whether or not as to when

111
00:05:58,279 --> 00:06:00,760
Speaker 1: that interview would actually happen, and if if there is

112
00:06:00,800 --> 00:06:03,120
Speaker 1: a delay, Um, you know, a lot of he said,

113
00:06:03,200 --> 00:06:06,600
Speaker 1: she said over over which side might be responsible for it. Also,

114
00:06:06,640 --> 00:06:09,200
Speaker 1: I want to remember that there are these investigations going

115
00:06:09,279 --> 00:06:13,520
Speaker 1: on on the hill. Uh. The House Intelligence Committee investigation

116
00:06:13,600 --> 00:06:16,479
Speaker 1: has obviously kind of you know, broken down to a

117
00:06:16,560 --> 00:06:20,200
Speaker 1: part into a partisan mass. But where does the Senate

118
00:06:20,600 --> 00:06:24,640
Speaker 1: Intelligence Committee investigation stand. Well, that's still basically the there's

119
00:06:24,680 --> 00:06:27,320
Speaker 1: two investigations in the Senate. That's the truly sort of

120
00:06:27,839 --> 00:06:30,600
Speaker 1: the most serious of them, the most bipartisan of them.

121
00:06:30,600 --> 00:06:33,440
Speaker 1: That's ongoing. The Judiciary Panel is continuing to look at

122
00:06:33,480 --> 00:06:36,920
Speaker 1: certain aspects with elements and glimpses of bipartisan work, But

123
00:06:36,960 --> 00:06:40,200
Speaker 1: the Senate Intelligence Panel is where you are seeing a

124
00:06:40,320 --> 00:06:43,640
Speaker 1: much fuller effort to try to be bipartisan. Having said that,

125
00:06:43,680 --> 00:06:46,520
Speaker 1: there are disputes over what public hearings might still be

126
00:06:46,600 --> 00:06:49,080
Speaker 1: held before this thing is wrapped up, and that seems

127
00:06:49,080 --> 00:06:51,240
Speaker 1: to be one of the biggest outstanding questions that they

128
00:06:51,240 --> 00:06:53,320
Speaker 1: have as to whether or not that will have a

129
00:06:53,360 --> 00:06:56,200
Speaker 1: bipartisan conclusion to it. But in the meantime, they are

130
00:06:56,200 --> 00:06:59,560
Speaker 1: aiming to release an interim report on election security ahead

131
00:06:59,560 --> 00:07:01,840
Speaker 1: of the mid terms. Uh, that's something that we could

132
00:07:01,880 --> 00:07:05,160
Speaker 1: tell that obviously Mueller was was interested in given the

133
00:07:05,200 --> 00:07:09,480
Speaker 1: indictment of the social media uh, the Russians doing the

134
00:07:09,520 --> 00:07:12,280
Speaker 1: social media attacks. The Senate Intelligence Committee also has a

135
00:07:12,520 --> 00:07:14,240
Speaker 1: has a lot of interest in this topic. So that's

136
00:07:14,240 --> 00:07:17,040
Speaker 1: a report we could see in the coming days or weeks. Kevin,

137
00:07:17,480 --> 00:07:20,640
Speaker 1: it seems as if Mueller is going into different areas.

138
00:07:20,800 --> 00:07:23,400
Speaker 1: Is that because we're just learning about those areas or

139
00:07:23,480 --> 00:07:27,280
Speaker 1: he is actually expanding the investigation. That's a very very

140
00:07:27,320 --> 00:07:30,320
Speaker 1: good question, and and um, you know, I think it's

141
00:07:30,360 --> 00:07:32,400
Speaker 1: probably a little bit of both. This is a this

142
00:07:32,480 --> 00:07:35,760
Speaker 1: is investigations very complex, and because the Mueller team is

143
00:07:36,040 --> 00:07:39,200
Speaker 1: basically as tight as basically any of these organisms as

144
00:07:39,200 --> 00:07:41,920
Speaker 1: any probe like this has ever been, leaks are very

145
00:07:42,000 --> 00:07:44,880
Speaker 1: selective and tend to come, um in some cases from

146
00:07:44,960 --> 00:07:47,280
Speaker 1: from the witnesses, and some of those might be self

147
00:07:47,320 --> 00:07:50,119
Speaker 1: serving or or or carrying out a grudge or whatever,

148
00:07:50,320 --> 00:07:54,000
Speaker 1: and others are legitimately real, real information. So sorting through

149
00:07:54,440 --> 00:07:57,320
Speaker 1: what's real what's not is a challenge. Sorting through what's

150
00:07:57,360 --> 00:07:59,640
Speaker 1: new and what's not as a challenge. Um, But they're

151
00:07:59,680 --> 00:08:01,840
Speaker 1: du seemed to be some areas that have come to

152
00:08:01,920 --> 00:08:04,080
Speaker 1: light in recent weeks or months that do seem to

153
00:08:04,160 --> 00:08:06,800
Speaker 1: be genuinely new to the probe. And I think everyone's

154
00:08:06,840 --> 00:08:09,160
Speaker 1: still trying to figure out exactly what this means and

155
00:08:09,200 --> 00:08:11,880
Speaker 1: how seriously Muller's taking these things. I mean, remember, i'd

156
00:08:11,960 --> 00:08:14,760
Speaker 1: caution just because he asked to witness about a particular

157
00:08:14,800 --> 00:08:18,040
Speaker 1: topic doesn't mean he's fully investigating that topic. These are

158
00:08:18,160 --> 00:08:21,080
Speaker 1: hours and hours of interviews he's doing with each witness,

159
00:08:21,240 --> 00:08:24,240
Speaker 1: For he seems like a serious guy. Well that's right,

160
00:08:24,360 --> 00:08:26,160
Speaker 1: but he's gonna be asking a lot of questions, and

161
00:08:26,200 --> 00:08:28,160
Speaker 1: some of the things are the ones he's gonna be targeting,

162
00:08:28,160 --> 00:08:30,400
Speaker 1: and others are just gonna be testing the waters. And

163
00:08:30,480 --> 00:08:32,440
Speaker 1: it's very hard to start through all of that. From

164
00:08:32,520 --> 00:08:36,240
Speaker 1: from the outside. Kevin Whitelaw Bloomberg News Deputy Managing Editors,

165
00:08:36,240 --> 00:08:44,240
Speaker 1: Thank you, Foreign nations and US customers harmed by President Trump.

166
00:08:44,280 --> 00:08:47,840
Speaker 1: Steel and aluminum terrorist face a slow legal fight challenging

167
00:08:47,880 --> 00:08:50,480
Speaker 1: the tariffs, and the role of US courts in the

168
00:08:50,520 --> 00:08:54,000
Speaker 1: global dispute is likely to be limited. Joining me is

169
00:08:54,040 --> 00:08:57,880
Speaker 1: Matt Gold, adjunct Professor of law Fordham University and former

170
00:08:57,920 --> 00:09:02,640
Speaker 1: Deputy Assistant US Trade Representsitive. Matt, countries can complain to

171
00:09:02,720 --> 00:09:06,400
Speaker 1: the World Trade Organization, but that is less like litigation

172
00:09:06,520 --> 00:09:11,120
Speaker 1: and more like a dispute settlement process. Explain the process.

173
00:09:11,160 --> 00:09:14,360
Speaker 1: If a foreign country claims against makes a claim against

174
00:09:14,360 --> 00:09:19,120
Speaker 1: the US, there sure be glad to um the process.

175
00:09:19,160 --> 00:09:21,920
Speaker 1: That's three basic stages. The first stage is what's known

176
00:09:21,960 --> 00:09:25,320
Speaker 1: as consultations. It's like an opportunity to settle the case

177
00:09:25,360 --> 00:09:29,520
Speaker 1: before your info litigation itself. The parties are required to

178
00:09:29,559 --> 00:09:33,480
Speaker 1: engage in consultations. But if consultations are going nowhere within

179
00:09:33,520 --> 00:09:35,920
Speaker 1: a relatively short period of time, the countries that brought

180
00:09:35,960 --> 00:09:37,760
Speaker 1: the case can call them to an end and move

181
00:09:37,800 --> 00:09:41,679
Speaker 1: on to the next stage. UM. The next stage is

182
00:09:41,720 --> 00:09:46,439
Speaker 1: a panel UM, a three member panel UH, which is

183
00:09:46,559 --> 00:09:50,960
Speaker 1: essentially litigating before three judge court. The panelists are experts,

184
00:09:50,960 --> 00:09:53,760
Speaker 1: they're from countries that are not HUM, that don't have

185
00:09:53,800 --> 00:09:57,240
Speaker 1: an interest in the dispute UM and that litigation can

186
00:09:57,280 --> 00:10:01,120
Speaker 1: take one to two years UM or a little bit

187
00:10:01,120 --> 00:10:03,120
Speaker 1: more or less depending on the complexity of the case.

188
00:10:03,720 --> 00:10:06,680
Speaker 1: And the third stage is appealing the panel decision to

189
00:10:06,760 --> 00:10:09,600
Speaker 1: the W two appellate Body, which for a major case

190
00:10:09,679 --> 00:10:13,680
Speaker 1: like this is almost a certainty. So in the end,

191
00:10:13,840 --> 00:10:16,440
Speaker 1: the w t O can tell a country to stop

192
00:10:16,559 --> 00:10:19,840
Speaker 1: violating the rules it. But does it have any real

193
00:10:19,960 --> 00:10:24,520
Speaker 1: power or is it world perception at work? Oh? No,

194
00:10:24,600 --> 00:10:27,720
Speaker 1: it has quite real power. It's the one international court

195
00:10:27,760 --> 00:10:31,000
Speaker 1: that has real power to enforce international law, the law

196
00:10:31,040 --> 00:10:34,360
Speaker 1: that imparts rights and obligations to government UM. The power

197
00:10:34,400 --> 00:10:38,000
Speaker 1: it has is to authorize retaliation UM, to authorize the

198
00:10:38,080 --> 00:10:41,599
Speaker 1: country UH if if other countries demonstrate, for example, the

199
00:10:41,679 --> 00:10:43,920
Speaker 1: United States has violated w t O rules. At the

200
00:10:44,080 --> 00:10:47,760
Speaker 1: end of the process, the w t pelet body UM

201
00:10:47,960 --> 00:10:52,040
Speaker 1: will first the appelate body rules that the US has

202
00:10:52,200 --> 00:10:55,839
Speaker 1: violated the W two agreements and explains why and how

203
00:10:55,920 --> 00:10:57,839
Speaker 1: it gives the United States a chance to bring itself

204
00:10:57,920 --> 00:11:00,160
Speaker 1: into compliance. But then the fourth and last day each

205
00:11:00,200 --> 00:11:04,000
Speaker 1: of the United States fails to change. What it's doing

206
00:11:04,760 --> 00:11:07,920
Speaker 1: is to authorize retaliation. And there's really a fourth procedure

207
00:11:07,960 --> 00:11:10,520
Speaker 1: by which the countries that took us to court proposed

208
00:11:10,520 --> 00:11:12,679
Speaker 1: to be a pallepody what kind of retaliation they want

209
00:11:12,720 --> 00:11:14,560
Speaker 1: to engage in. It will be some kind of trade

210
00:11:14,600 --> 00:11:18,520
Speaker 1: barriers against US goods or services going to their countries UH,

211
00:11:18,600 --> 00:11:21,800
Speaker 1: and then the w A palipody will authorite specific UH

212
00:11:21,920 --> 00:11:26,520
Speaker 1: such trade barriers, specific retaliation. The EU has already threatened

213
00:11:26,559 --> 00:11:29,720
Speaker 1: to retaliate against the US, might it do that before

214
00:11:29,800 --> 00:11:33,120
Speaker 1: going to the w t O. Well, there's always a

215
00:11:33,240 --> 00:11:36,240
Speaker 1: risk of that UM that would really send us into

216
00:11:36,280 --> 00:11:38,199
Speaker 1: a downward spiral. The whole point of the w A

217
00:11:38,280 --> 00:11:42,920
Speaker 1: dispute resolution processes to give countries a legal mechanism for

218
00:11:43,040 --> 00:11:46,199
Speaker 1: retaliation so that we don't run into you violated the

219
00:11:46,240 --> 00:11:48,400
Speaker 1: treaty and in response, we're going to violate the treaty

220
00:11:48,400 --> 00:11:50,760
Speaker 1: and everything goes into a downward spiral that collapses a

221
00:11:50,800 --> 00:11:54,320
Speaker 1: global trading system UM instead the process. First of all,

222
00:11:54,320 --> 00:11:56,880
Speaker 1: it gives the countries an opportunity to settle dispute. Second

223
00:11:56,880 --> 00:11:59,360
Speaker 1: of all, it it's a process where takes a little

224
00:11:59,360 --> 00:12:00,920
Speaker 1: bit of time, so one can can sort of have

225
00:12:01,040 --> 00:12:03,839
Speaker 1: cool heads. UM. It gives the country that's violating the

226
00:12:03,960 --> 00:12:06,280
Speaker 1: rules a chance to get its own political act in order,

227
00:12:06,280 --> 00:12:10,120
Speaker 1: because usually there's some kind of domestic political UH forces

228
00:12:10,200 --> 00:12:13,160
Speaker 1: pushing the violation UM, and they have some time to

229
00:12:13,600 --> 00:12:15,680
Speaker 1: to to fix that. But at the end of the day,

230
00:12:16,120 --> 00:12:19,559
Speaker 1: if if the retaliation is authorized by the w t O,

231
00:12:19,640 --> 00:12:22,920
Speaker 1: then the retaliation is not another violation UM. And that

232
00:12:23,120 --> 00:12:26,000
Speaker 1: also sort of helps everything from going into an uncontrolled

233
00:12:26,000 --> 00:12:30,080
Speaker 1: downward spiral. So the Trump administration has already exempted Mexico

234
00:12:30,160 --> 00:12:33,560
Speaker 1: and Canada from the tariffs. They may make more exceptions.

235
00:12:34,280 --> 00:12:37,199
Speaker 1: How does that affect the US argument before the w

236
00:12:37,480 --> 00:12:40,720
Speaker 1: t O that the tariffs are based on national security needs.

237
00:12:42,240 --> 00:12:44,679
Speaker 1: The US never had a winning argument for the w

238
00:12:44,880 --> 00:12:47,440
Speaker 1: t O UM. There's two different sets of law here.

239
00:12:47,480 --> 00:12:50,160
Speaker 1: There's the U S law and there's the international law UM.

240
00:12:50,400 --> 00:12:52,720
Speaker 1: On the international level, in order for the United States

241
00:12:52,800 --> 00:12:56,079
Speaker 1: to impose trade barriers that we would otherwise not be

242
00:12:56,280 --> 00:12:59,839
Speaker 1: entitled to impose under our trade agreement obligations. If we're

243
00:13:00,040 --> 00:13:03,199
Speaker 1: using national security as our reason, UM, we would have

244
00:13:03,360 --> 00:13:05,679
Speaker 1: to have we'd have to either be in time of

245
00:13:05,760 --> 00:13:09,079
Speaker 1: war or we'd have to be in an emergency. And

246
00:13:09,160 --> 00:13:12,880
Speaker 1: international relations, which is generally understood to be the things

247
00:13:12,920 --> 00:13:15,480
Speaker 1: that happened right before you're actually in the war UM.

248
00:13:15,679 --> 00:13:18,760
Speaker 1: But in any event, UM, we don't have either. We

249
00:13:18,880 --> 00:13:20,719
Speaker 1: we we have nothing that could even be close to

250
00:13:20,760 --> 00:13:24,160
Speaker 1: an emergency international relations. What we have our US government

251
00:13:24,160 --> 00:13:29,520
Speaker 1: officials that can envisage an unlikely but theoretically possible future

252
00:13:29,559 --> 00:13:32,440
Speaker 1: scenario where there would be a World War three UM.

253
00:13:32,880 --> 00:13:35,319
Speaker 1: Global ocean shipping would be disrupted. We would not be

254
00:13:35,400 --> 00:13:39,120
Speaker 1: able to import steel or aluminum UH in meaningful quantities

255
00:13:39,200 --> 00:13:41,080
Speaker 1: because they need to go by ocean freight, not air

256
00:13:41,160 --> 00:13:43,800
Speaker 1: freight UH, and we wouldn't have sufficient capacity for our

257
00:13:43,800 --> 00:13:46,760
Speaker 1: own domestic economy during that disruption. The fact that you

258
00:13:46,840 --> 00:13:50,080
Speaker 1: can envisage a theoretical but unlikely future does not even

259
00:13:50,120 --> 00:13:53,439
Speaker 1: come close to you currently right now having an emergency.

260
00:13:54,080 --> 00:13:57,280
Speaker 1: So there's no question that we don't qualify for that

261
00:13:58,280 --> 00:14:01,040
Speaker 1: that national security exception, and that's in the General Agreement

262
00:14:01,080 --> 00:14:03,760
Speaker 1: on Tires and trade the GAT Article one. And as

263
00:14:03,800 --> 00:14:07,480
Speaker 1: a result, we are violating our normal bindings with respect

264
00:14:07,520 --> 00:14:10,319
Speaker 1: to the duties that when there are customs duties that

265
00:14:10,360 --> 00:14:13,120
Speaker 1: we're allowed to impose on these goods. So we never

266
00:14:13,200 --> 00:14:17,880
Speaker 1: had an argument. Are our complete absence of argument? Uh

267
00:14:18,200 --> 00:14:20,160
Speaker 1: to defend ourselves in w t O is a more

268
00:14:20,240 --> 00:14:22,520
Speaker 1: complete absence of argument. But the big difference so that

269
00:14:22,600 --> 00:14:25,760
Speaker 1: it does make um is under US law. Even if

270
00:14:25,760 --> 00:14:28,200
Speaker 1: the US were authorized under w t O rules to

271
00:14:28,240 --> 00:14:30,240
Speaker 1: impose these barriers, and there still would be the question

272
00:14:30,280 --> 00:14:35,000
Speaker 1: of whether there's Congress, We'll have to leave that. We'll

273
00:14:35,040 --> 00:14:37,440
Speaker 1: pick We'll pick this up again, I'm sure, Matt, thanks

274
00:14:37,680 --> 00:14:41,360
Speaker 1: so much. That's Matt Gold of Boredom Law School. Thanks

275
00:14:41,440 --> 00:14:44,680
Speaker 1: for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe

276
00:14:44,720 --> 00:14:47,960
Speaker 1: and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and

277
00:14:48,040 --> 00:14:52,320
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brolso this

278
00:14:52,880 --> 00:14:57,240
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg. Yeah, yeah,